Forum:Character article format
Notice: All talks are relocated from recipients' Talk pages; you will have to check their Talk pages to see the actual conversation editing history prior to July 2015. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 18:41, July 6, 2015 (UTC) ---- Goodness I can see what you mean about this wiki needing help. You're the only active admin? That's rough. Do you know who started this wiki? How long it's been around? I would like to help in any way I can. I will start rereading through the series and making edits when I can, though I am a pretty busy person and I might have to put it asside everyonce in awhile depending on everthing that is going on. Katherine Rebekah (talk) 00:37, April 25, 2015 (UTC) :IKR? And I only just acquired this wiki earlier this month! Before that, this place was virtually deserted and abandoned! Such a bloody waste! As for the origin of this wiki, I was actually in the process of updating the "About" page (tab can be found on navigation), I've just sent out a minor edit in case my laptop untimingly crashed again lol There was also no written policy so I had been working on it last night (but really needed a break); I don't think this place is completely irredeemable, just that formerly there was no direction AND there was no one to step in when something was just below quality... :Anyhow, if rereading and refreshing memories take up too much time, we have a Inkheart Wiki:To-do list, though that may still be a bit broad... I do think the relatively easier and actually kinda important thing... is to convert all the "Biography" section into in-universe writing (some probably doesn't even have that section, people just write what happened to them in the "Appearances" section... which is why when I come across one of those, I would change the labeling to "Physical attributes"... cuz people were misunderstanding the word usage Orz) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:03, April 25, 2015 (UTC) ::Makes sense. I will definetly look at the priority list. Though this may not be relevent at the moment, I think the main characters pages really need to be expanded. An example of a good character page (in my mind) looks like this: Aang. This is Aangs page from the Avatar wiki (my first and only wiki untill this week). Obviously, there would need to be some differences but I think it's good for a general idea. Also, I think we should have two different pages for movie characters and book character as there are some slight deferintations. Good thing I have the movie to rewatch! ::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 01:11, April 25, 2015 (UTC) :::Yeah, that was one of the first things I noticed, incredibly un-detailed character pages! lol :::And can you imagine my puzzlement when one of the previous admin actually ENCOURAGED people to focus on characters' relationships? I was like, seriously, are you reading an article about a character, or an article about a character's relationship? Dustfinger's page is like a prime example that I wanted to cry every time I see it Orz. The Avatar character page is a tad bit long in my opinion, let's at least aim for a quarter of its length lol. :::I did think about how certain characters' reactions were different in the film version, but I think right now we should primarily focus on the book version (biography-wise); anything that's different in the film with its source material, dump it first at "Differences between novel and film" section on Inkheart (film), and when that gets too long (which is doubtful as the page is super short right now), we'll see what else to do. I don't think we need to have two pages of the same character for film and book, at most, have a "Film adaptation" section at the very end of the character page; I think some characters actually used to have something similar, but people ended up just writing who the actors/actresses are, and not really helping all that much. I'm kinda basing on the Harry Potter Wiki, their film and book adaptation has quite some differences, but generally the main article focuses on what happens to a character in the books; everything else, perhaps not in a "Film adaptation" section per se, but simply all qualify being under "Behind the scenes". :::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:42, April 25, 2015 (UTC) :::I would kindly wish the appearances order to be left as the way it is, for the film technically is an alternative version of the first book, therefore chronologically it happens prior to the second book. There's also an NDS game of the film (I only knew of this like yesterday or the day before), if a page is created for it, it will also go before the second book. This is again basing on the HPW, but I'm not copying for the sake of it; I actually think it makes sense, and THAT wiki is effing huge, so I would think majority of the people are used to and fine with this treatment. =] :::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:53, April 25, 2015 (UTC) ::::Okay, that is fine with me. If I ever do and edit that you don't like feel free to undo it. :) ::::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 13:15, April 25, 2015 (UTC) HPW and other models Okay, so where to start? I looked at HPW and noticed that Harry's page had a picture of the movie him and didn't make much distinction between the book and the movie, at least that I could tell. They didn't even have the thing at the bottom that you suggested which stated the differences between the book and the movie. I still think we should have that but now I am a little less worried about having one character page for both the book and movie character (unless the movie completly messed around with them). Katherine Rebekah (talk) 13:55, April 25, 2015 (UTC) *'HPW and of which part we are basing on' **'Images' The images help illustrate what the words are describing visually, you will probably realize, they also use images from the video games and Pottermore as well, not just from the films; as long as the imagery is doing exactly what the words are saying, they are acceptable. Since you are on Harry's page, we will use that as the example; take a look at his "early life" section (this is just to narrow it down to where to look, I'm pretty sure the entire page follows this), all of the images that were used (Harry's bedroom beneath the staircase, speaking Parseltongue to the boa constrictor at the zoo, receives his Hogwarts acceptance letter, Hagrid's birthday cake to Harry, at Ollivanders buying his wand... etc.), are all moments that actually happened in the book, meaning, the imageries do not derive from canon, so they are allowed. I would think it will be fairly redundant to specifically labeled the image and write in the description that "this is a image from the film", for I'm pretty sure no one will mistaken those images being taken from the novel. However, when the film adaptation differentiates from the source material, THAT is when they are NOT to be used in the biography section. Right now, our wiki does not have a lot of screencaps from the film (it is my secondary priority; I do have it in mind but I kinda just want to fix what's already on the table first), but I'll give you an example on how to go about it. For Mo, he reads out Farid in both the book and the film versions, so the screencap of the moment he was reading Tales From the Thousand and One Nights (I'll have to double check the book title in the film, but they are essentially the same thing) from the film, is allowed to be added to the biography section to help illustrate his action. Whereas, him reading out Wizard of Oz to summoned a tornado; THIS situation does not happen in the book, so this screencap is NOT allowed to be but in the biography, however, it can be put in the movie page and the "difference between~" section I told you about. **'Sections and formats' This is when a large community is both a blessing and a curse; luckily it's a situation our wiki probably won't be dealing with any time soon. I do in fact see flaws on how the editors of the HPW sometimes organize the information on pages, which is why I only base on the good and reasonable parts, and not just blindly follow and copy whatever they are doing over there. On Harry's page, they do have it in "Behind the scenes", BUT it is VERY POORLY ORGANIZED; examples of the differences between adaptations, please look at what I placed at the very bottom of this section; the last two parts is what I consider "poor organization", they are essentially talking about the same act but how they are done differently in books and films, so imo it should be under the same bullet (*), and the film ver. under the sub-bullet (**) so that it is clear they are both listed to compare the same situation. Though, again, I really think this is the least of our worries right now as there is only one film; if the film version is what you want to dive in first, then like I said before, edit the film page and see how that goes. In order to compare differences between adaptations, you have to have something to compare with, and right now, almost all the character biographies regarding to their parts during the first book, are highly lacking, so fill that out FIRST, or there really isn't much to go about. :--Sammm✦✧(talk) 17:14, April 25, 2015 (UTC) :--Sammm✦✧(talk) 22:01, April 25, 2015 (UTC) ::That makes sense. As long as the canon in the books and the movie are not at odds we can use the image. Katherine Rebekah (talk) 18:27, April 25, 2015 (UTC) ::I agree that the HP page is not perfect and I don't by any means think we should coppy all that they do. I agree with the methods of orginisation that you proposed. ::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 19:30, April 25, 2015 (UTC) :::Remember your concern about different continuity with book and film? I think I saw a smart solution, take a look at this page: Clary Fray; it takes a few more seconds to load, but you will basically see three section on a single page: book/tv series/film. I don't think we have to be THAT drastic, and to completely separate the book and film version on our wiki, but to make two tabs on the sections describing the event of Inkheart on character pages if it largely differs. Just something to think about, though again this is not imo our top priority. =] --Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:14, May 7, 2015 (UTC) ::::The Clay Fray page is amazing! It looks like a lovely solution. Of course I don't believe that there are many differences from book to movie for the characters, so maybe the tab could say something like Differences in Film, or something along those lines. ::::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 13:58, May 8, 2015 (UTC) :::::Urrrrr this is very annoying cuz I literally only found out just now that they got rid of the format I mentioned above mid-July. In case people come back and wonder what we were talking about, the page used to use Tab view and contains different versions. :::::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:38, August 3, 2015 (UTC) Format (Conversation relocated from: Forum:Potential pages) Wow... so like... I totally JUST learned a new vocab xDDD I'm not sure if I can remember it later on and use it IRL, but anyways. My stream of thought initially was like... "Hmmm okay, a van is a vehicle, but on a broader term, a vehicle can be still counted as an object... right? So... perhaps this can also be listed under "Equipment"?" lmao I know. So I went checking how other wikis do it when certain characters have those "type" of objects in their possession, and that's how I learned the word "Paraphernalia" xDDDDD So on the article I was viewing, it has a "Paraphernalia" section, and then "Equipment" as a subsection, and "Transportation" as another subsection... So I guess that solves it!!! I think it's especially a good idea for Mo because he does indeed have both equipment and transportation... I'll have to do a text search on iBook and see if there's any clear description about his bookbinding tools, but yeah, I feel like with those information I think it can really help raising the article's content quality. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:33, July 12, 2015 (UTC) :Lol, good for you. I've heard that if you use the word three times in one day it will stick (don't ask me if this works, lol). Does this mean that we will have the paraphernalia sub section as well if it is ever applicable? Katherine Rebekah (talk) 02:12, July 13, 2015 (UTC) ::Good question! Honestly I didn't think it was necessary at first, but it seems like for the sake of consistency, that's the way to do it? So even if most characters don't have the "Transportation" subsection but has a section for "Equipment", then that should also be reform into a subsection under "Paraphernalia". I'ma go edit Basta's page before I forget. Though, on the wiki I visited, they actually count "Weapon" alone as another subsection and not as equipment, do you think we should follow that as well? If so, , so let me know when you have time to reply! =] --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:24, July 13, 2015 (UTC) :::So, just to get it strait, we have: Transportation, Weapons, Equipment, and possibly Paraphernalia? I think that sense Paraphernalia and Equipment are so similar we could probably have only one of those. I think I would go with paraphernalia, sense it is a broader term. Weapons could also fit under paraphernalia, possibly. Usually I wouldn't say that if it was a story where the characters used a lot of weaponry, but Inkheart doesn't have much of that. Though, that might be cutting it down a little too much. What do you think? :::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 14:22, July 13, 2015 (UTC) ::::No, if a person have all three of them (I think Mo does if his article is complete), it will look like: :::: ::::I don't know if you are missing the fact that "Paraphernalia" is a SECTION, and the other three is ITS SUB'SECTION? Like I said, it is for the sake of consistency: since some characters will be having more than one, then any character, even though they probably only have one out of the three, should have it as a subsection under a section, so that ALL character articles can have a more unified format. I was asking if we should just consolidate three into two (merging equipment and weapons), but after a night's sleep, I realized I was forgetting, like I said, Mo has all three of them... I mean... I don't remember the exact plot... I but I honestly don't think Mo was using his bookbinding tools to attack people as the Bluejay, so there's that. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 18:00, July 13, 2015 (UTC) :::::Ah, so they are subsections*. Well, in that case I think what you have in the preview is great. And yes, you're probably right about him having all three. I don't recall Mo attacking people with his book binding knives, lol. :::::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 19:17, July 13, 2015 (UTC) ┌───────┘ On that note, I decided to update the "Standard layout" template; (there's two options you get to choose from when you "Add a page", "Standard layout" and "Blank page"), you can see it here: MediaWiki:Createpage-with-video. There's actually further instructions on how format an article but can only be seen during editing; basically #1-7 on the table of contents is what should be appearing on a character article, and #8-13 is one subjects that are not. People can just removes the ones that aren't applicable when they are editing. When I have time I'll convert existing articles cuz I know most of them have "Personality" and "Physical attributes" both as sections and not '''sub'sections. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:28, July 13, 2015 (UTC) :Very cool! May I suggest adding a link to that (very very helpful) page to the Inkheart Wiki:Policies and guidelines page under "article writing styles"? Or adding it some place on there sense it is policy to format pages that way, and so that it is easily accessible to new users? :Katherine Rebekah (talk) 21:48, July 13, 2015 (UTC) ::That's the absolute right track of thought! In fact, I'm hoping to have some thing like this '''(← do not miss the link) so that it's a demonstration page or something; for ours I think it'll just be called Inkheart Wiki:Character article formatting demo xP. I'll put "finishing the policies" as my next task after I finish relocating some more of our talks! Feel free to click on the red-link to test out clicking "Standard layout" and play around if you want; like you don't even have add any content but just set it in place and see how you feel about it (I wouldn't know for I haven't actually need to use it, since I mostly add templates and sections to existing articles and not creating new ones), so perhaps you might be able to see some flaws as a user. Again, there is no need or urgency in doing this, so please don't see it as an extra burden lol xDDD You don't HAVE to, do it, I'll do it eventually if it wasn't done, just that I'll focus on the relocation first. :3 ::BTW, I honestly feel like we've accomplished crap loads of stuff today! GJ KR! *pats on the back* --Sammm✦✧(talk) 22:25, July 13, 2015 (UTC) :::Alright! I think that's a great page layout* example er page XD(I'm a big stickler for collapsible templets. IDK if you were considering using those, but I would def be on board with that.) :::I tried clicking on the link. Unfortunately it takes me strait to the editor and I don't see the "standard layout" option. Am I just missing something (again)? D: :::Oh yeah. High fives for getting crap loads of stuffs done! *high fives* I also had a very productive study day so I'm feeling good! Katherine Rebekah (talk) 23:13, July 13, 2015 (UTC) ::::Hey there!!! First thing!!! Sorry this time it's on me! (I seldom create pages using red-link, so I completely forgot that by default, it chooses the "Blank page" option for the editors!) I'm afraid that if you are interested to try it out, you'll have to do it the regular way and make sure you copy every word → Inkheart Wiki:Character article formatting demo ← and use it as the page title. ::::As for collapsible boxes, I'm actually really torn on how that wiki handled it lol. I think mainly my issue with it is that the "show" option isn't distinctive enough imo; I mean, the ones for the "Appearances" section they have is alright, because it was obvious that there's hidden content; but their bio section (they call it "History")... take this (← do not miss the link) for example, at the very first few glances, I honestly thought it was a stub page cuz everything was hidden, thus, if not paying attention, it'd look like there's only sections but no content underneath. At least that's how I feel about it. Right now, I don't think any of our character has bio long enough to feel TOO long... but if that day comes, I might draw inspiration from how they did it; however, I am def. gonna set the default as "expanded" rather than "collapse" if doing so, because I don't think it's the same case as chapter summaries where the page really would be getting too lengthy. ::::And congrats on being productive!!! ♥ --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:46, July 13, 2015 (UTC) :::::Yeah, I'll do that then. :3 :::::Oh, I was actually referring only to the appearance section, sense it has the pretty colors, lol. I don't think that the drop down box is necessary in the way that they used it. I think it's a little much. And your right, I could not tell that there was content at first (even after you had told me there was 0_o). If our pages get too long I'm sure will figure something out. But hey, look at Avatar Wiki, they have really long pages and no one is complaining. *shrug* Katherine Rebekah (talk) 00:29, July 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Do let me know if you still plan to create the project page. ::::::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:38, August 3, 2015 (UTC) ┌─────────┘ I tried once again and again I was unsuccessful. So at this point it's probably best for you to do it, for simplicity's sake. :) Katherine Rebekah (talk) 15:06, September 18, 2015 (UTC) :Hey! Sorry for being persistent, but I've just done a test (I don't need to actually publish the test page to see if it works) and it does show up, so can you describe to me what "unsuccessful" mean? Worst case I'd just have to screenshot the steps but I'd like you to read my instruction very carefully again: :*Click on the "Contribute" button on the top right of the page. :**A drop down selection will appear, click on "Add a page". :*A pop-up that titled "Create a new article" will appear, :**Copy and paste "Inkheart Wiki:Character article formatting demo" when being asked "What do you want to call it?" :**For "Choose a page layout:", it is already default to "Standard layout", so stay on that option. :**Click "Add a page". :*THEN it takes you to the new page you are about to create, you'd be seeing the Visual mode and it's probably not obvious that you are actually seeing MediaWiki:Createpage-with-video; you can preview it or see it in Source mode to see the differences more clearly. :I need you to do it because I need to know if the instructions written between is clear enough, and because I wrote them, I need someone else's opinion. Hope it works this time! :--Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:56, September 18, 2015 (UTC) ::Sorry about that. I didn't realize that the page had been created. So, here's what I think is going on. Everything is fine up until the choose lay out part. For some reason when I create a page it doesn't ask me to choose a page lay out, it just says create page. So it must be something with my computer or something like that? Katherine Rebekah (talk) 18:20, September 18, 2015 (UTC) Citation is finally ready for use, I hope the instruction I put there is clear enough for people to understand how it works. So yeah, if you come across pages with references that aren't using the template, feel free to help switching them! :::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:16, May 30, 2015 (UTC) ::::Okay, I will check citebook when I have the time. ::::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 22:21, May 30, 2015 (UTC) :::::BTW, you still have to use the ' when using for it to work as citation, for example: for what you did on Mo's page; I fixed it but just remember to do it like that next time! =D :::::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:57, June 3, 2015 (UTC)}} ---- Edit history check Quote usage I have not seen quotes used like this on any other page. Is this permissable? If not I will correct it. Katherine Rebekah (talk) 23:44, May 21, 2015 (UTC) :lol I merged the info, so yes, I considered it allowed (please start the habit of checking edit history). I'll admit, the only thing not really working is the citation display, I still haven't figure out what went wrong with the quote template, but besides that, I don't really think there's a problem. :--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:20, May 22, 2015 (UTC) ::Ah, okay. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, I love the use of quotes. Next time I'll be sure to check the edit history. Katherine Rebekah (talk) 03:49, May 22, 2015 (UTC) Relationship section relocation and placed it on all the current articles that had their relationships removed. Does it not work for you? The relationships can be now see in the "See also" section. It is a mockup of how Marvel and DC did their Links and Related section respectively. (I have yet to figure out their awesome Quotes template, but if I do, it'll be added.) ::::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 17:48, May 22, 2015 (UTC) :::::Beautiful. There is more then one way to skin a cat, and it looks like the way you did it was just as good, if not better, that what I suggested. I really need to start paying attention to these details... Katherine Rebekah (talk) 17:52, May 22, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Talks about improvement of the template can be seen at Template talk:CSA}} ---- Template Ratings Just want you to know that I've once again outdone myself! Right now I've only manually update Dustfinger's page for it to show up (after Wikia self-updates; all the regular character articles should be having this new function); so yeah, now we can give ratings to those pages! Remember how you told me about you know someone who's good at coding? Perhaps you can ask him/her how to place the rating template on top of and make them aligned! Right now I only figure how to place it on top, but they are both flushed-right, and just don't look good imo. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 05:48, June 20, 2015 (UTC) :Okay, never mind, after multiple tries; I did manage to place the rating template within the actual character template instead of atop and trying to align it the hard way; however now the problem is now the character template looks slightly lower than the top of the article paragraph... I'm done for the day Orz. If your friend can help out with this, it will be greatly appreciated! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 06:16, June 20, 2015 (UTC) ::Sammmm! Oh my gosh that is so cool! I love it. :3 I will definitely contact HammerofThore and see if he would be willing to help out. If he says yes I will direct him to your talk page (or you to his message wall) so that you two can talk about it without a middle man. ::Katherine Rebekah (talk) 19:26, June 20, 2015 (UTC) :::Hey! I'm glad you like it! However, I'm just encountering some issue because I tried to do a second rating on the same page; it is now all wonky and because of the teasing, our ratings so far will def. be lost in the process, just letting you know. As for this code expert, perhaps you can direct him to Thread:862273 cuz I'm asking for all the help I can get! :::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:24, June 20, 2015 (UTC) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:16, June 21, 2015 (UTC)| ::::Hi there. ::::Katherine Rebekah asked me if I would look over the code problem you are having, and see if I could work out a solution. I have had a look at the code and documentation, and while I am not completely clear on what the problem is, there are a few things I have noticed that I think might be causing the issues you are having: ::::* the code in the ratings templates seems a little different than the code suggested to be used on the ratings widget page ::::* you seem to be using the same urid for both ratings styles, which I think could be causing an overlap, and why they are not appearing different ::::* I would suggest testing the templates on a separate page rather than within the character infobox, so as to identify whether the problem is due to the template or the infobox coding. ::::I'm sorry I could not be of more assistance, but I hope you are able to fix the problems you are having. HammerOfThor 21:44, June 20, 2015 (UTC) :::::Hey there Thor (it feels a bit weird calling someone with a Norse God's name lol haha)! About your respond: :::::*Can you elaborate "the code in the ratings templates seems '''a little different than the code suggested to be used' on the ratings widget page"? I mean, I did start of with the plain one; however, after deciding I'm going to use an additional rating, I follow the instruction the site gave when wanting more than one rating on a page; it didn't work out cuz I think fundamentally it's an instruction about two different ratings of the same design, and not two different ratings of two different designs... And that was also when ALL the ratings are suddenly synced up; this issue has now been resolved after switching to the current code. :::::*The code I have on both template is actually different, one is "'rw-urid- FieryRatings'" and the other "'rw-urid- EntertainmentRatings'"; but right now I've uninstalled the second script because the solution is unclear yet, so either way we shouldn't be able to see the second type of rating at all regardlessly? :::::*The infobox is performing fine and has been performing fine; the template that houses the code itself is now fixed and also fine; the problem atm is how to get the second code of the second template to only recognize the second js (that's currently not in function due to the problem earlier) :::::Thanks for trying to help out nonetheless!!--Sammm✦✧(talk) 22:29, June 20, 2015 (UTC)}} ---- ::::::'↑ Situation resolved, courtesy of User:Ohmystars! ↑''' Minor tweak I've tweaked so that now, certain section there's set answer on what to type (the instruction should be clear enough), if you have free time and want to help out, there's that! xP If you take a look at and you see the edit summary being "(Removing category Male (automatic))", meaning those articles still needs to be switch to how the template is now working. Just figure you may want to take a break from thinking about ch. 10 (lol), and who knows? If you view those articles, may something will come to you and you'll make them even better than how they are now! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:59, July 6, 2015 (UTC) :Okay, thanks. I'll take a look at it. 14:59, July 6, 2015 (UTC) (Katherine Rebekah (talk))